The Prosecution And Diddy Continue The Tug Of War Over What's Privileged And What Isn't (6/21/25)
The Prosecution And Diddy Continue The Tug Of War Over What's Privileged And What Isn't (6/21/25)Update: 2025-06-21
Description
In Document 395, the Government’s Filter Team submits a reply letter to Judge Subramanian in response to Sean Combs’s objection concerning the production of a cellphone referred to as “Device-1.” The Government is seeking access to this phone, while Combs has claimed privilege over certain messages, specifically the “June 23 Messages.” The defendant previously argued that these messages are protected either under the common-interest doctrine or through Kovel principles, which extend attorney-client privilege to third parties such as consultants assisting attorneys.
The Government refutes both of these claims, asserting that neither argument holds up under legal scrutiny. First, they challenge the application of the common-interest rule to the messages in question, likely suggesting that the communications do not meet the necessary criteria—such as a shared legal interest—to qualify for that protection. Second, the Filter Team argues that privilege does not automatically apply to communications with non-lawyers under Kovel unless strict necessity is demonstrated. The Government concludes that the messages must be produced and that the privilege claims raised by Combs are insufficient to prevent that production.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.395.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The Government refutes both of these claims, asserting that neither argument holds up under legal scrutiny. First, they challenge the application of the common-interest rule to the messages in question, likely suggesting that the communications do not meet the necessary criteria—such as a shared legal interest—to qualify for that protection. Second, the Filter Team argues that privilege does not automatically apply to communications with non-lawyers under Kovel unless strict necessity is demonstrated. The Government concludes that the messages must be produced and that the privilege claims raised by Combs are insufficient to prevent that production.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.395.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Comments
In Channel
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States00:00
00:00
x
